Making It On Broadway - th truth? — Page 5

I would just like to comment as my name was mentioned.

It's true, if ANYONE thinks Emily is one of God's gifts to musical theatre, it's certainly me.

HOWEVER, there is NO denying that due to her STATUS that she HIT during Side Show, she has had a DOOR open to many oppportunities she may have not even had the chance to be SEEN for otherwise. Whether we like it or not, once you hit a certain POINT, it's *EASIER* (not EASY) to get further ahead.

Lets be honest here... do you think if Emily was a chorus girl and still had the attendence record she does, she would EVER be hired in this town again? Nope, don't think so. And YES, she's incredibly talented and deserves whats she's gotten, but in the SAME respect, there are plenty of unknowns JUST as talented and have yet to hit that same peak.

So, I agree... for Marissa to say it's going to be just as hard for HER to get that next gig as the next person, that is just ignorant or she's trying unsuccessfully to appear humble. Case in point, it's bullsh*t.

---

The key is acknowledging that it is YOUR career and that your agent is not the main ingredient. It's YOU. Make things happen. Too often, people "make it" and think that their work is done. A lot of times, getting the second gig is just as hard if not harder because people can only see you as that character you just played. One in a million people get job after job offered to them. That's why they're stars. The rest of us have to *gasp* WORK at it.

Rath - Personally, I knew EXACTLY what I was getting into when I came into this business. But, I've been shocked and am baffled by people who appear confused when they don't get every job they go out for. How could they not know what this business was like? THe answer is, as you have pointed out time and time again, they DO know what they're getting themselves into. BUT, and this is key, everyone thinks THEY will be the exception to the rule. They will be famous and adored and get offered job after job without even having to audition. And some of them are right. Like I said: ONE in a MILLION.

---

I agree with you, B.B.

This is a business, like Hollywood, that is based on what you did last. You either push and fight to work again right after that Tony win or you are going to sit around without anything, and then the more time passes, the quicker you're going to be forgotten. There are too many people competing for two few jobs. If you want to be a part of it, and you've already gotten far enough to win a Tony, then fight to stay in the battle. No one - NO ONE - ever said it was an easy business.

And sometimes one has to realize that perhaps it's time to throw in the towel. The jobs aren't coming along for you anymore and there's a new crop of actors - again, it's all about perspective, reality and paying the bills. Like everyone in the world, you do what you have to do to pay the bills and take care of your family.

---

Blue:

Here is a quick vocab lesson:

Naive:Lacking worldly experience and understanding, especially:
Simple and guileless; artless; Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment.

Paranoid: Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others.

These words are hardly "opposites," but on the contrary, very accurately describe your criticism of the book.You challenge the collective wisdom of 154 Broadway performers and are overcome by your apparent distrust of others.

Respect should be given to the performers who opened up their lives and finally said something honest and true about Broadway.

The days of sugar-coating the Great White Way are, hopefully, over...

Now the rest of the world can see what really goes on.

Updated On: 11/11/04 at 09:20 AM

These words are hardly "opposites," but on the contrary, very accurately describe your criticism of the book.You challenge the collective wisdom of 154 Broadway performers and are overcome by your apparent distrust of others.

NYC20042: forget the book, I find your tone condescending and presumptuous. Let me stress again that a) I found the book enjoyable and enlightening, and b) the issues I have with the book have nothing to do with the people who were interviewed or their opinions, but by the way the book was constructed. There are gleaming holes in the book which were not addressed: why nothing on racial casting, a huge issue of contention on Broadway? Why does the book have such a narrow focus on some shows (ie. Les Miz, Martin Guerre), while ignoring a big chunk of others (Phantom is given surprisingly little coverage for a show that most defines modern Broadway)? And how does this affect how we read the book? I'm asking critical questions; you're the one being close-minded by offering simple solutions and putting the book on a pedestal.

---

Come on now. Does everthing really have to be about race?

If you read my original post about the book, you'll find that I was perturbed by how the book picks up issues like race and sexuality, without ever going into them. Racial casting was mentioned in a quotation from Lea Salonga, but it was never followed through by the editors.

If the authors set out to encompass the problems plaguing Broadway, I don't see how they could overlook racial casting. If we take your argument (that the book isn't about race), then the book isn't about "sexual harassment" either, but it happens, and it's covered in the book. I don't see why they would cover sexual harassment and not racial discrimination. Again, it shows a certain subjectiveness to the book, rather than objective journalism.

Yet I acknowledge the fact that this book is a subjective work - it is, after all, completely comprised of opinions and anecdotes. As such, however, I don't think we should see it as a work of journalism - especially since Langel herself is both an interviewer and an interviewee, which doesn't reflect well on the integrity of the book.

---

You know, you can do a book that reveals the dark side of business- any business- without being as much of a downer as Making it on Broadway. Think of Ball Four, the first "clubhouse confessional." The book caused a tremendous amount of controversey when it came out- the baseball commissioner himself spoke against it.

Jim Bouton revealed the "dark side" of professional baseball- the wide use of amphetamines, Mickey Mantle and the rest of those classic Yankees' bad behavior, the constant fear a pitcher lives with when it comes to the health of his throwing arm, and the grind of being a marginal reliever, trying to make it as a knuckleballer when you can't throw hard anymore. But the book, overall, is not depressing, and doesn't seem like it has an agenda or, as NYC20042 would prefer to say, a "message." It is, in fact, considered a literary classic. I realize that the format of Making it on Broadway makes it impossible for it move as smoothly as a book written from one point of view, but regarding overall tone and style, it could take a few lessons from Ball Four.

There's a difference between revealing the dark side of things, and making a whole book about the dark side of things.

Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:25 PM

Heck, in some ways I even liked Everything Was Possible more than Making it on Broadway. It was more revelatory even if it glossed over some no doubt nasty things.

And have you read Ball Four? I really recommend it- it's one of the funniest things I've ever read.

Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:31 PM

I have read both Bouton publications, Ball Four and Foul Ball, and I enjoyed Everything Was Possible as well.

That being said, Making It on Broadway is a much more important work, and is groundbreaking.

Go Yankees.

Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:35 PM

Perhaps you should read it a second time.

So, now you are trying to argue that everyone knows that:

(1) actors sexually harass each other back stage,
(2) that Tony winners go back to selling underwear at the GAP days after winning their award,
(3) that actors rarely "act" on stage in long running shows,
(4) that there is peer pressure not to act,
(5) that theaters are covered with rat droppings,
(6) that actors in long running shows rarely if ever meet the director,
(7) that some actors take out their penis on stage during a live show to make other actors laugh, and
( 8 ) that no matter how many credits you get, you are always at square one, and it rarely if ever gets easier...

etc., etc., etc.

I completely disagree. There has never been any other book which has addressed these issues. Until now. Hence, it is groundbreaking.

Updated On: 11/11/04 at 04:48 PM

If you knew about all of this, why didn't you write a book and try to do something about it?

Don't you see there are problems here, and the actors in this book are brave enough to address them???